Family and Matrimonial Law - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding party.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion to review a case management judge's orders that required him to perfect his family law appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal for his failure to do so.

During the case management of the review motion, the moving party repeatedly refused to follow court directions, sought sweeping substantive relief beyond the scope of the review, and engaged in relentless debates with the court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the review motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, while also restricting the moving party's future access to the Divisional Court.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rahman J. dated November 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision denying her request to relocate with her child from Waterloo to Michigan to live with her fiancé.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and admitted fresh evidence of emails demonstrating the respondent father's emotionally abusive and controlling behaviour.

The court found the trial judge erred in principle by failing to apply established mobility jurisprudence, over-emphasizing the maximum contact principle, failing to respect the custodial parent's views, treating the status quo as a default, and placing the mother in a classic double bind.

The appeal was allowed, and the mother was granted permission to relocate with the child.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs on consent.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to change a spousal support order.

He argued that the respondent was no longer entitled to compensatory support, that more income should be imputed to her, that his own imputed income of $100,000 was too high, and that an increase in child support constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of evidence by the motion judge.

The court upheld the findings that the respondent made reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient, the appellant failed to prove a material change in his income, and the increased child support did not reduce the respondent's need for support.

The self-represented applicant commenced proceedings in the Divisional Court seeking to 'dismiss the defence' of his opponents regarding an adoption denial by the Children's Aid Society and delays in a Small Claims Court action.

The court found it had no jurisdiction over most of the applicant's complaints, including transferring adoption decisions to Family Court or addressing criminal allegations.

The court directed the Registrar to give notice under Rule 2.1.01 that it is considering dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, except for the complaint regarding the Small Claims Court's failure to schedule a settlement conference, for which the applicant was ordered to provide further particulars.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for a stay pending appeal of an access order, the respondent sought costs.

The court reviewed the offers to settle made by the appellant and found they did not comply with the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, as they were conditional or included predeterminations of costs.

However, considering the parties' reasonable behaviour and the factors under Rule 24(12), the court awarded the successful respondent costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant mother brought a motion to stay a final custody order pending appeal.

The trial judge had changed the child's primary residence to the respondent father due to the child's poor school attendance while in the mother's care.

The Divisional Court reviewed the test for a stay pending appeal, noting conflicting jurisprudence on the 'serious issue' threshold, but ultimately dismissed the motion.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious issue, the mother failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, emphasizing that the child's best interests were served by continuing to attend school from the father's residence.

The appellant father brought a motion to stay a trial judgment that ordered a week-about parenting plan and child support, pending his appeal.

The trial judge had ordered the shared parenting plan based on the respondent mother obtaining suitable accommodation near the children's school.

Fresh evidence on the motion showed the mother had lost that accommodation, was living in unsuitable temporary housing, and had exhibited erratic behaviour during access visits.

Applying the three-part test for a stay, the court found the fresh evidence raised a serious issue for appeal and that a stay was in the children's best interests to prevent irreparable harm.

The motion was granted, staying the week-about plan and child support, and substituting a schedule of specified daytime access for the mother.

The appellant brought a motion to stay portions of a final parenting order pending appeal.

Pending full argument on the stay motion, the court addressed the respondent's interim parenting time.

The appellant raised concerns about the respondent's accommodation and a recent medical incident where the respondent appeared disengaged.

The court found insufficient evidence to require supervised parenting time but ordered that the children reside with the appellant, with the respondent having specified daytime parenting time on weekends.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to terminate child support for his two adult children.

He argued that his income had decreased, that the children refused to have a relationship with him, and that the motion judge breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice, no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no material change in financial circumstances, and no error in relying on a psychologist's report which concluded the father's own abusive behaviour caused the estrangement.

The appellants, former counsel for the respondent in family law proceedings, appealed an order and a subsequent costs endorsement.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error of fact or law in the motions judge's findings regarding the advancement of funds.

The court also determined that leave was not required to appeal the costs endorsement under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, and found no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion.

The appeals were dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection judgment making her three children Crown wards.

She sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the trial judge erred by admitting and relying heavily on a court-ordered parenting assessment by Dr. Lynch, while disregarding competing medical reports.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it was available at trial.

The court held the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in admitting Dr. Lynch's report under section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act, nor in preferring his evidence over the appellant's experts.

Claims of judicial bias and ineffective trial counsel were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's family law orders regarding equalization of property, spousal support, child support, and the matrimonial home, arguing errors in fact and law, as well as a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge, who assisted both self-represented parties, made no palpable or overriding errors and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The court upheld the trial judge's order for step-down spousal support based on imputed income, noting the appellant could seek recourse if her circumstances changed.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The applicant, Kenora Prospectors & Miners, Limited, sought leave to appeal an order made at a trial management conference that denied it leave to bring a motion to be removed as a party to a family law proceeding.

The applicant argued it was denied the right to be heard on the merits of its request for leave.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order because the applicant was seemingly denied the opportunity to present its case, and concluding that the right to be heard and the proper conduct of trial management conferences are matters of systemic and public importance.

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision granting Crown wardship without access of her child to the Children's Aid Society.

The child was apprehended at birth due to concerns about the mother's cognitive delays and lack of parenting ability.

The mother argued she was not given adequate opportunity to learn to parent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the evidence, including psychological assessments, and correctly concluded that the mother lacked the ability to acquire and convert parenting information practically, even with assistance.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that reduced his spousal support obligations to $400 per month, arguing it should have been reduced to zero due to his unemployment and suspended driver's license.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred in ordering any support given the economic disparity and the appellant's unemployment.

The court reduced the ongoing support to zero as of November 2003, but declined to order retroactive repayment.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary child support and rescind over $20,000 in arrears.

He argued that his income had severely diminished due to depression and that the motions judge erred in imputing an annual income of $40,000 based on his past work in family businesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet his onus of establishing a material change in circumstances.

The majority held that the motions judge was entitled to conclude that his income was difficult to discern and that a trial of an issue was not required.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding retroactive child support.

The trial judge had concluded there was no evidence that a portion of the respondent's personal injury settlement was attributable to income replacement.

The Divisional Court found this was an error, as correspondence and statutory accident benefits clearly indicated some amount was for income loss.

To avoid further expense, the court fixed retroactive child support at $10,000.